[list:n3ebdppu]
[*:n3ebdppu]Will Notre Dame ever fill the slot that The Big Ten is saving for it? [/*:m:n3ebdppu]
[*:n3ebdppu]Will Notre Dame ever join the Big East for football? [/*:m:n3ebdppu]
[*:n3ebdppu]Will one of the other BCS conferences ever expand to make room for Notre Dame?[/list:u:[/*:m:n3ebdppu]]

While these questions have been batted around ad nauseum, I began to think about them from Notre Dame's point of view. If I'm Notre Dame & am going to join a conference, would I want to let someone else determine the hand I'm dealt? Would Notre Dame want to be in an all-sports conference like the Big East with Tier 4 schools like Louisville & Cincinnati? Posts on the ND Board say "no."

Might Notre Dame try to start their own conference by proposing an Ivy League for the 21st century? Would such an elitist concept have appeal to other top tier schools? Here's a list of the top ten candidates to join Notre Dame if they ever initiated such a concept. All are in USN&WR's Top 50, as is Notre Dame. In parentheses are the number of times they have appeared on the ND football schedule in the past 10 years &/or will appear on its schedule over the next 5 years. In keeping with Notre Dame's tradition of playing a "national schedule," the list is drawn from across the country.

That's an interesting concept. I read on these boards about a 'Southern Ivy' league around the time when ACC raid was going down.

In order to get a conference off the ground, you need to generate lots of money - especially in this case because of the geographic footprint of the conference. This means you need teams that will gets lots of viewers to create large TV deals and guarentee a BCS bowl berth plus other good paying 2nd tier bowl games. This would have to offset the costs of travel of this particular 'national' conference. I would think that this new 'ND conference' - in order to get off the ground - would need at a minimum - USC, Miami, and of course ND to generate the TV contract in FB.

As an alternative - while might not be as great academically as the ACC, Big10, or perhaps your hypothetical 'ND conference', I think it would still appeal to ND:

This would be a 10 team league with 7 out of the top 50 TV markets. IT would corner the NE as a BE market. IT should get a great TV contract. The 'footprint' is also relatively compact. The only third tier school is UC and under its president (Nancy Zimpher) they will climb to 2nd tier within the next 5-10 years. She is really pushing academics. All the other schools I believe are in the top-70 of the USN&WR rankings besides the aforementioned UCinn. It would also have three other really good privates in BC, SU, and NW (or 4/10 total including ND). If you consider Army and Navy that's 6/12. THe other benefit is that the conference is has universities in states that are contiguous.

One drawback I could see is that it would only have two 'good' traveling teams in FB - PSU and ND. I thought about the addition of WVu and UL to the league but it could drag down the league too much for ND in terms of academics.

An 8 game conference slate would only leave ND 2 other games besides USC and Navy. This is the other drawback that I see.

Just my 2 cents and more food for thought.

Last edited by panthersc97 on Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I would like to see some of the private colleges form their own conference called the Big 16. The formation of this conference would allow these schools to have automatic bids in the BCS games. It would also give them great media exposure across the country in major recruiting areas. All of these schools have higher academic standards (they would all be on equal footing) and would not feel compelled to complete with the facilities of the other public state schools (which is impossible unless you are like a select few: USC, Notre Dame, Miami, Stanford, etc.). Here's the list of schools, their location, and which division they would play in. I know some of the schools would be a stretch to get into a conference, but let’s just dream a little. Let me know what you think.

EAST DIVISION
TCU (TX) from the Mountain West
SMU (TX) from Conference USA
Tulane (LA) from Conference USA
Vanderbilt (TN) from the SEC
Boston College (MA) from the ACC
Syracuse (NY) from the Big East
Wake Forest (NC) from the ACC
Miami (FL) from the ACC

Option #2:If Notre Dame wouldn’t join the optimal conference, then Duke could be substituted and it would look like this:

WEST DIVISION
Tulsa (OK) from Conference USA
Rice (TX) from Conference USA
Baylor (TX) from the Big 12
Northwestern (IL) from the Big 10
Vanderbilt (TN) from the SEC
BYU (UT) from the Mountain West
Stanford (CA) from Pac 10
USC (CA) from the Pac 10

EAST DIVISION
TCU (TX) from the Mountain West
SMU (TX) from Conference USA
Tulane (LA) from Conference USA
Boston College (MA) from the ACC
Syracuse (NY) from the Big East
Duke (NC) from the ACC
Wake Forest (NC) from the ACC
Miami (FL) from the ACC

Option #3:If Notre Dame wouldn’t join the optimal conference, then Duke could be substituted and it would look like this:

WEST DIVISION
Baylor (TX) from the Big 12
TCU (TX) from the Mountain West
Rice (TX) from Conference USA
SMU (TX) from Conference USA
Tulane (LA) from Conference USA
BYU (UT) from the Mountain West
Stanford (CA) from Pac 10
USC (CA) from the Pac 10

EAST DIVISION
Tulsa (OK) from Conference USA
Northwestern (IL) from the Big 10
Vanderbilt (TN) from the SEC
Syracuse (NY) from the Big East
Boston College (MA) from the ACC
Duke (NC) from the ACC
Wake Forest (NC) from the ACC
Miami (FL) from the ACC

Will one of the other BCS conferences ever expand to make room for Notre Dame?

Not joining one soon by their only admission.
Would join the B-10 first. An 8 game slate would allow for USC, Navy, a BE recruiting tour in the Meadowlands, and one other game to spread through the other conferences. Currently plays 3 - 4 B-10 teams now.

Big EAST

Third or fourth choice.
1. Big 10
2. ACC
3. Might choose PAC- 10 over BE - Will go out on a limb to say that PAC - 10 goes hybrid taking them for FB only in a 12 team conference and the BE keeps the rest of their sports to keep travel sports down. The Catholic / BB schools would make sure they weren't kicked out of the BE and besides the BE wouldn't loose anything that they don't already have from ND conference wise. Could you imagine book end hybrids on both coasts. Not to far fetched. ND has a steady staple of teams they currently play here too. (USC, UCLA, Standford, and Washington). An 8 game slate here with 4 teams traveling to S. Bend to fill their stadium, 2 B-10 teams, Navy, and a game spread over the other major conferences annually is pure leprechaun gold here too.
4. Settles on BE after all other avenues are shut down.

Conferences expand for ND.

I personally could see 14 team Super-conferences where ND would end up in one because the Super-conferences finally have the power to shut ND out. But thats years down the road to after all other revenue sources are maximized and a National Championship game is attached to this configuration.

I don't think that even ND has the power to pull their own conference together. If it tried it would be a weak conference. First it would have to have some geographical symmetry for the other sports to keep travel coasts down for them. This would mean pulling the best of the B-10 and BE. BE schools would jump. B10 schools would not. Their lower tier schools might blink but even they have loyalty to the B-10.

The other schools in Florida (Miami), Texas (Rice), and California (USC) are just to far away for the cohesion needed for their own league. Ideas are interesting but even the myth and clout of ND can't break up the power conferences of the B-10, ACC, SEC, PAC-10 or even the B-12 in the BCS. The only conference it could possibly break up would be the BE where it already has partial residency. Hence the rest can wait for ND to makes its choice and their are parameters to accommodate them if they all go to 12 first and then to 14 team super conferences with a national championship built in. If the conferences go to 14 the BE definitely looses as its football teams will be spread over the other super conferences as the weakest conference for loyalty and the best conference for the others to pick from. The BE better work with ND some how before the 14 conference idea catches on if it ever catches on because they will cease to exist for FB and will be back to a BB only conference.

1990 is sixteen years ago and the Big 10 may no longer be so keen in keeping an offer open to Notre Dame any longer. When considering the Big 10 wants all within their ranks to be "Major Research" institutions not so restrained by doctrine and social agendas.

If conferences are more than athletics, and freedom in academic research is not to be constrained by denominational interests, then potential transitional situations for campuses such as BYU and Notre Dame would encounter such discussions from faculty bodies. Baylor, for example, has had some history with such conflict.

If conferences are more than athletics, and freedom in academic research is not to be constrained by denominational interests, then potential transitional situations for campuses such as BYU and Notre Dame would encounter such discussions from faculty bodies. Baylor, for example, has had some history with such conflict.

Milton Friedman, the father of "voodoo economics" was from the University of Chicago, a Big Ten member.

Notre Dame is known as being home to the liberal wing of the Catholic church. I'm not aware of any institutional policy of the sort that you mention above or that the university has taken "organizational" positions on these topics. I think that you would find that the thinking at Notre Dame is not anywhere near as homogenous as you suggest. If you're at all familiar with universities, I would think you're also aware that there are many competing social agendas at any number of campuses around the country.

Last edited by friarfan on Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If conferences are more than athletics, and freedom in academic research is not to be constrained by denominational interests, then potential transitional situations for campuses such as BYU and Notre Dame would encounter such discussions from faculty bodies. Baylor, for example, has had some history with such conflict.

Milton Friedman, the father of "voodoo economics" was from the University of Chicago, a Big Ten member.

Notre Dame is known as being home to the liberal wing of the Catholic church. I'm not aware of any institutional policy of the sort that you mention above or that the university has taken "organizational" positions on these topics. I think that you would find that the thinking at Notre Dame is not anywhere near as homogenous as you suggest. If you're at all familiar with universities, I would think you're also aware that there are many competing social agendas at any number of campuses around the country.

I did phrase that date in a misstated manner. What was being implied is that 1990 was the last time the Big Ten expanded (AP NYT June, 5, 1990 Big Ten Conferences Agrees to Make Penn State No. 11). Speculation at the time included whether or not Notre Dame would be next soon. That was a key date in that the Big Ten had not been predicted by many to expand with anyone. I am aware of the 1999 dance the Big Ten had with Notre Dame. While it was referenced from the Big Ten Commissioner that Notre Dame had an open invitation, there could be multiple motives and interpretations for that comment. That is not to assume he was not serious. Nevertheless, any expansion does reside solely with the Commissioner and the agreeing school, but would require voting by each and every member. The 1999 offer was not reported as being permanent and open-ended.

If Notre Dame was embraced by the Big Ten, if would be for their athletics and the vast attention they draw. While they emphasize quality undergraduate education, they do have graduate and professional schools----but not in the same orientation and mission as does the predominance of the Big Ten.

Notre Dame, being a faith based institution, would generate faculty and academic administrator discussions of how they would fit into their consortium arrangement. This would not be from the standpoint of bigotry, but shared mission per research. Be that as it may, the driving force is athletics, not academics. But academics has to pass whatever vision is held by a partial constituency. It was Notre Dame's faculty in 1999 that appeared most enthused about the prospects of joining the Big Ten. The message there is that academic wise, the Big Ten holds something that the Notre Dame faculty and academic community wanted to embrace.

What is your motivation in attempting to be condescending about what one knows about higher education? If it is inject an erroneous assumption to support a stance that you view favors the interests of Notre Dame and the bb only schools of the Big East, and you are part of the anti-split advocates of said interests, then that point is presented. There are also fans, including many of the Big East, who see things different. Some of them may actually have Ph.Ds' and work directly in higher education for multiple decades.

By the way, Milton Friedman went to the great beyond just last week. While he advocated that minimizing the role of government as a means promoting social and political freedoms in free market place and the quantity of money as an instrument of government policy as well as the promotion of individual freedom; he also offered some distinct views on deficit spending and accountability. Arguing whether the "neocon" movement's monetary endeavors really mean the same thing, thoroughly, shall best be left for another time. Friedman did go undergraduate to Rutgers, so...

What is your motivation in attempting to be condescending about what one knows about higher education? If it is inject an erroneous assumption to support a stance that you view favors the interests of Notre Dame and the bb only schools of the Big East, and you are part of the anti-split advocates of said interests, then that point is presented. There are also fans, including many of the Big East, who see things different. Some of them may actually have Ph.Ds' and work directly in higher education for multiple decades.

By the way, Milton Friedman went to the great beyond just last week. While he advocated that minimizing the role of government as a means promoting social and political freedoms in free market place and the quantity of money as an instrument of government policy as well as the promotion of individual freedom; he also offered some distinct views on deficit spending and accountability. Arguing whether the "neocon" movement's monetary endeavors really mean the same thing, thoroughly, shall best be left for another time. Friedman did go undergraduate to Rutgers, so...

SEC03. sorry to come off as condescending. I was trying to come off as angry. I found your remarks about ND academics to be insulting to all Catholic higher education institutions.

Don't for a minute mistake an internet handle of "FriarFan" as an indicator that I support the interests of the non-football schools. I never even took a course there although I have two daughters who are alums. I live in Connecticut & my primary rooting interest is for UConn where I was in fact a student.

Your use of the term "basketball-only" is ill advised. The non-football members of the Big East compete in many sports other than basketball & in many case compete in more sports than do the football members, who falsely refer to themselves as "all sports" schools - false in that with the exception of UConn they don't compete in all sports that the Big East offers.

For the record, I'm in favopr of a split, have been for years, & have posted this many times on this board over the years.

Regardless of where Milton Friedman did his undergrad work, the point was that research interests in the Big Ten had no problem working with researchers at the University of Chicago when he was on the faculty there. I would assume that they would have no problem working with the Economics faculty at Notre Dame - nor with Law, Engineering, or any of their other graduate or undergraduate schools.

Finally, your reference to Notre Dame as a "faith based institution" is a poor use of this term, which has been generated by the ultra-conservative right for political purposes, not for educational purposes. While Notre Dame is a Catholic university, the vast majority of Catholic colleges & universities - including Notre Dame - long ago developed the ability for religion & learning to co-exist at their insititutions of higher education & among their leading thinkers in general. You will find Catholics on both sides of almost any issue - abortion included. You will not find fundamentalism & religious conservatism permeating the thinking of scholars at Catholic universities to the point that they become bastions for junk science like creationism & other forms of opposition to modern scientific thinking, evolution included. You will not find administrations that interfere with the freedom of thought that allows scholars to explore new theories in science & other areas of modern scholarship. You will find non-Catholics in substantial numbers on the faculty, just as you will find substantial numbers of Catholics on the faculties of Big Ten universities.

I do not know enough about the views of Christian colleges & universities that refer to themselves as "faith based." (Notre Dame does not refer to themselves that way, so others do so at their own peril.) Nor do I know enough about BYU & Mormonism to know how their religious views affect the freedom of scholarship at the university. The general perception that I have encounteres among the public is that groups who refer to themselves as "faith based" also see themselves as "conservative" & support conservative politics. Catholics as a group are not monolithic enough to be categorized as "conservative." Quite the contrary. Every presidential election since Jimmy Carter's has been determined bt Catholics. Whichever way they have voted as a group has determined the outcome of the election - whether it was Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. While American Catholicism has a conservative wing, it also counts among its members large numbers of liberals & moderates as well.

Bottom line is that scholars at Notre Dame have the freedom of thought at the institutional level required to successfully participate in the Big Ten consortium. It strikes me that you are the one injecting an "erroneous assumption" into this discussion - the very thing of which you accuse me.

If the defense of Catholicism is the basis for maintaining a unified Big East under one umbrella, then depicting the detractions to this assertion is fair game.

To identify that UCONN is the only complete Big East member is absurd. That is similar to saying the Universities of Kentucky and South Carolina are not complete SEC members because they affiliate with C-USA for men's soccer. The SEC does not sponsor men's soccer. If they did, they would be playing soccer in the conference.

This analogy is way different as to Notre Dame's choice. The Big East sponsors football and Notre Dame WITHHOLDS their football from Big East or any other conference participation.

The Big East was formulated initially on men's basketball. It did not originate based on women's gymnastics. If it did, the historical configurations would look much different.

Louisville won the Big East football representation to the BCS this year. That was done without playing Notre Dame. If Notre Dame and Louisville play some future football as attempts are being explored, that may prove delightful. Louisville, as well as the other seven football members, certainly have their choices for OOC games as interests, resources, availability, and strategy permits. To lock in Notre Dame as a required opponent when the game would not count toward conference rankings, should be a choice, not a mandate. Notre Dame, with all their popularity and lucrative incentives, are not the only option for high profile games OOC.

Too many Notre Dame enablers are around who want to create arrangements that benefit Notre Dame disproportionately. To bring Notre Dame into a potentially split Big East football conference based on promised games, but not full conference participation, with the HOPE they will eventually join in full; is lame and flawed judgment.

Notre Dame and the 7 basketball oriented schools just happen to be Catholic. The issue is not religion, but the sponsorship of 1A football in the conference. Boston College's secular identity was not a problem. But they left the Big East along with others for an all-sports conference.

If those that want a split are portrayed with denominational or theological bias, then it is the anti-splitters, Notre Dame lovers, and bb loners that are injecting religion as a factor into the equation to maintain the status quo.

If the defense of Catholicism is the basis for maintaining a unified Big East under one umbrella, then depicting the detractions to this assertion is fair game.

Of course no one suggested any such thing.

Regardless, if someone like SEC03 is going to assert such detractions, then it is fair game to disagree with him & to challenge his assertions. There was nothing legitimate in anything he asserted. Notre Dame has nothing in its approach to education & research in common with the so-called "faith based" institutions with which he compared them. Their Engineering & Physics departments would never sponsor the kinds of junk science that those institutions offer. The Big Ten would be very comfortable collaborating witht their professors in research exchanges.

Quote:

To identify that UCONN is the only complete Big East member is absurd. That is similar to saying the Universities of Kentucky and South Carolina are not complete SEC members because they affiliate with C-USA for men's soccer. The SEC does not sponsor men's soccer. If they did, they would be playing soccer in the conference.

You'd better check the participation of the football schools - including Louisville - in the sports that the Big east actually does sponsor. UConn is the only one that participates in all Big East sports. This is not the same as the SEC comparison. Fans of the football schools can't go around calling their schools "all sports" if they don't compete in all sports which the conference sponsors.

Quote:

This analogy is way different as to Notre Dame's choice. The Big East sponsors football and Notre Dame WITHHOLDS their football from Big East or any other conference participation.

Villanova & Georgetown also withhold their football from Big East participation. The conference directly solicited their participation & they refused. Why not complain about them?

Notre Dame was accepted as a member without football - same as the other 7 members that don't participate in football. That was by mutual agreement. They're not withholding anything. That was the deal agreed to by both parties a dozen years ago. The Big East said that they wanted Notre Dame without football. A little late to start whining about it now. ND is living up to its contract & is withholding nothing that was promised. Period.

Quote:

The Big East was formulated initially on men's basketball. It did not originate based on women's gymnastics. If it did, the historical configurations would look much different.

Exactly. By the way, the Big East doesn't offer competition in men's or women's gymnastics.

Quote:

Louisville won the Big East football representation to the BCS this year. That was done without playing Notre Dame. If Notre Dame and Louisville play some future football as attempts are being explored, that may prove delightful. Louisville, as well as the other seven football members, certainly have their choices for OOC games as interests, resources, availability, and strategy permits.

Really? Could you please tell me who Louisville had on its schedule this year of the caliber of Notre Dame? Louisville was turned down by every member of the SEC except Kentucky in an effort to upgrade its OOC schedule this year. Obtaining ranked teams as OOC opponents is very, very difficult. It is critical for the success of the Big East that they schedule such games both to improve the perception of the conference & to compensate for the fact that they only play 7 in-conference games when everyone else playes 8 or 9. Getting Notre Dame on the schedule would be an enormous asset both in strength of schedule & in revenue.

Quote:

To lock in Notre Dame as a required opponent when the game would not count toward conference rankings, should be a choice, not a mandate. Notre Dame, with all their popularity and lucrative incentives, are not the only option for high profile games OOC.

No one cares about conference rankings. What the BCS cares about is strenth of schedule & strength of teams. Notre Dame on the schedule would help with both.

Of course it should be a strength. What has been proposed here is that it is a choice the conference should make. Of course they don't have to.

Since you have repeated that ND is not the only choice for high profile games, I ask you again. Who are the other choices? If the Big East wants to get a 1-loss champions like Louisville picked over a 1-loss champions like Florida, they must improve SOS by adding more challenging opponents to their schedules. Florida was picked because they beat 3 ranked teams & their only loss was to a ranked team. Louisville beat only one ranked team & lost to one other. That kind of schedule won't get it done.

Quote:

Too many Notre Dame enablers are around who want to create arrangements that benefit Notre Dame disproportionately. To bring Notre Dame into a potentially split Big East football conference based on promised games, but not full conference participation, with the HOPE they will eventually join in full; is lame and flawed judgment.

Enablers?? Aren't we getting high & mighty? "Enabler" is defined as a family member who facilitates an alcoholic's or drug addict's addiction. We're talking about college football here, not addiction. wrong use of the term.

The suggestion of bringing in ND on a part time basis was made with the stated intention of helping the Big East, not for the intention of helping ND. Feel free to disagree with the merits of that argument, but don't make claims about the proposal that were never stated. Nor was it stated that there was a hope that ND would join. They want to be independent & I agree that it would be a mistake to base any future plans on the hope that they would join.

Quote:

Notre Dame and the 7 basketball oriented schools just happen to be Catholic. The issue is not religion, but the sponsorship of 1A football in the conference. Boston College's secular identity was not a problem. But they left the Big East along with others for an all-sports conference.

If those that want a split are portrayed with denominational or theological bias, then it is the anti-splitters, Notre Dame lovers, and bb loners that are injecting religion as a factor into the equation to maintain the status quo.

Did you actually read any of the posts on this thread? ::) SEC03 was the one who injected religion into the discussion.

I for one have steadfastly maintained for years that I am in favor of a split. Who are the anti-splitters that you are referencing?

Your problem is that you are a Notre Dame hater. There is little of anything that supports the allegations constantly thrown at Notre Dame. You don't have to be a "Notre Dame lover" to want to have discussions based on fact rather than bias.
Because of all the Notre Dame haters out there, there are constant misstatement of facts, distortions, & complete misrepresentations. This is unfortunate for anyon who actually wants to have a rational discussion of the issues.

I cheer for UConn first & foremost. I also enjoy rooting for Providence & BC because my kids went to those schools. I also feel that I can enjoy & appreciate the quality of play from any school that plays the game the right way.

Probably in much the way an official invitation is "offered" by a conference to an incoming school or a bowl bid to a school; the offer isn't made public until the answer is already known... and the answer is positive.

History indicates several reasons to give Notre Dame these perks. I'm fairly convinced that the future is different. Of course, I'm also convinced Notre Dame will hold out until well past the "sell by" date due to pride. That happens well after the split is supposed to happen, mind you.

I still hold to the thought that two conferences would have had 10 invitees to the tournament last year, while the one conference ended up with 8. I still hold that the Big East is too large and unwieldly.

Last edited by pounder on Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum